non-autonomy and the "best interests" defence

Whilst the Bush administration continues to manoeuvre against a woman's right to abortion, we are reminded again of America's stance on the unborn, as a mother in Utah is charged with first degree criminal homicide for failing to undergo a Caesarean section on medical advice, resulting in the stillbirth of one of her twins. This situation will undoubtedly leave its imprint on history, alongside a residue of complex ethical questions.

It seems indisputable that the Caesarean section was medically indicated, and that she should have undergone the procedure. But she didn't. And now she faces a 5 year custodial sentence? For homicide of someone who hasn't yet been born?

Do the unborn have any status? When? At what stage of development? With the medical ability to keep alive foetuses at increasingly earlier stages of development, despite a hugely deficient quality of life and no semblance of normality, who decides what is ethically acceptable? We are talking about non-autonomous patients' rights. Who defends the rights of these patients? As a doctor you have to do what you believe is in the best interests of your patient, if they are unable to make that choice themselves. But what happens when there are 2 patients- mother and foetus- and conflicting views?
But I digress slightly.

The woman herself has a psychiatric history. Was she mentally evaluated after refusing to undergo a Caesarean despite having been informed of the risks to her pregnancy? Was she neglected? Why wasn't a court order sought to protect the interests of the unborn?

In the same publication, I also read about how a court found that hospital staff breached another non-autonomous patient's human rights by giving diamorphine to ease his distress, but because it was against the mother's wishes, this act had violated the patient's rights.

Seems to me, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.